Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 5, 2009

09933912 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TAO CHEN, JACK K. WOLF,
JOSEPH P. ODENWALDER, EDWARD G. TIEDEMANN,
BRIAN K. BUTLER, and YONGBIN WEI
____________

Appeal 2008-004797
Application 09/933,912
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: October 5, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO,
and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 9 and 33 to 41. We will reverse.
The disclosed invention relates to an action taken by a subscriber
station to reduce power consumption during the reception and decoding of
Appeal 2008-004797
Application 09/933,912

2
frames by the subscriber station. The subscriber station saves power by
determining a number of frames that must be received and decoded correctly
by an inner decoder for an outer decoder to correctly decode the received
frames, and terminating reception of the frames when the determined
number of frames is received correctly (Spec. 13 to 16; Abstract).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A method for reducing power consumption of a subscriber station,
comprising:
determining a number of frames that must be received and decoded
correctly by an inner decoder for an outer decoder to correctly decode the
received frames; and
terminating reception of the frames when said determined number of
frames was received correctly.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Li US 5,537,410 Jul. 16, 1996
Fischer US 6,012,159 Jan. 4, 2000
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9, 33, 34, 36 to 39, and 41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Fischer.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 8, 35, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Fischer and Li.
Fischer describes a method and system in which an original file X has
additional packets added thereto to create redundant packets (col. 7, ll. 27 to
30). During decoding and file recovery in a first embodiment, if the number
Appeal 2008-004797
Application 09/933,912

3
of correctly received packets is greater than or equal to the number of
original packets, then the original file can be recovered (col. 7, ll. 49 to 65;
col. 8, ll. 26 to 29). During file recovery in another embodiment, Fischer
indicates that there is no need for decoding if the first k received packets are
exactly the same as the k original packets, and the last k-n packets can be
ignored (col. 9, ll. 52 to 56; col. 10, ll. 16 to 34).
The Examiner acknowledges (Final Rej. 4) that “Fischer does not
explicitly teach terminating reception of the frames when said determined
number of frames was received correctly.” According to the Examiner
(Final Rej. 4), “since Fischer teaches that if the number of correctly received
packets is equal to the number of original packets, the original file can be
reconstructed from the correctly received packets (col. 10, lines 13-20) and
if the first k packets are received correctly, then the last k-n packets can be
ignored (col. 9, lines 53-56), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Fischer to
include terminating reception of the frames when said determined number of
frames was received correctly as recited in the claim.”
Appellants argue inter alia (App. Br. 13) that Fischer “does not
disclose or suggest the limitations ‘determining a number of frames that
must be received and decoded correctly by an inner decoder for an outer
decoder to correctly decode the received frames’ and ‘terminating reception
of the frames when said determined number of frames was received
correctly’” as recited in the claims on appeal.
As indicated supra, the first embodiment in Fischer neither teaches
nor would have suggested terminating reception of the frames when a
Appeal 2008-004797
Application 09/933,912

4
determined number of frames was correctly received because the number of
correctly received packets is greater than or equal to the number of
originally transmitted packets. Although the alternative embodiment in
Fischer ignores/terminates the last k-n packets, Fischer expressly states that
decoding is not needed if the received packets are exactly the same as the
transmitted packets. Stated differently, the claimed function of the outer
decoder is not needed in the alternative embodiment described by Fischer.
Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9, 33, 34, 36 to
39, and 41 is reversed because the Examiner’s articulated reasons for
modifying the teachings of the reference to Fischer do not support a legal
conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). The obviousness rejection of claims 3, 8, 35, and 40 is likewise
reversed because the data rate teachings of Li do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Fischer.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121